I strongly disliked watching Blade Runner. I thought the acting was good, the characterization was good, but I just did not like the movie as a whole. There is a definite reason for this. It was too science fiction for me.
The whole sci-fi factor covers it all. First, I do not like sci-fi movies. I do not enjoy the space or futuristic films with the genetic mutants and flying cars. I don’t buy it. I enjoy watching naturalistic mise-en-scene films that include realism versus something fake and made up. I laughed when the screen told me the film was taking place in 2019 because that’s only nine years from now and what was shown on screen is nothing even close to what things are like. There were human replicants. Humans and replicants were living on other planets. Roy, a replicant, had white hair (or just really really really blonde hair), which it seems like most sci-fi movies do have somebody with white or another strange color of hair. The buildings and city were designed in a way that reminded me of other futuristic films. Also, there were flying cars and other digital effects. I understand the film was made in the 80s, but really, 30-40 years would produce flying cars and mutant humans?
I know. The movie makers were probably trying to make it a sci-fi film, however, I was viewing this film comparing it to the other film noir movies that I’ve seen (Double Indemnity, Touch of Evil, and Brick). I saw that Blade Runner had similar characteristics to the other film noir movies—use of smoke, darkness, night, rain, shadows, etc. The character’s used the word “pal” when speaking to each other which reminds me of something that would be said in Touch of Evil or western movies. It is hard to put Blade Runner in the same category as films I’ve enjoyed/appreciated.
I guess I do appreciate Blade Runner’s use of film noir characteristics, but even there I was disappointed in some aspects. I never knew if it was day or night because it was always dark, but there were always people around. There was no distinction between day and night, which through off my sense of time. Also, it rained quite a bit during the film. And there was steam or smoke in many of the scenes. It seemed like when the movie makers decided they would use dark, water/rain and smoke/steam in the film, they went a little overboard with it.
Side note: Another thing that bothered me was Deckard’s vision/dream of the running white unicorn. It seemed to serve the same purpose as the water buffalo, explicit pictures and clouded skies in the remake of Psycho…nothing.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Touch of Evil
Touch of Evil is a film that I might not have completely enjoyed, but I appreciated. I think I was frustrated with certain parts of the plot, which hindered the way I view the film. However, there were many qualities that I liked and appreciated. The following will briefly explain what I didn’t like followed by what I liked.
I was mostly angry at character stupidity. I wondered why characters didn’t use common sense or realize things that I realized. Susie was a stupid character the way she followed Pancho around when he said to follow him. Mike was stupid that he didn’t do his research on the hotel where he was having his wife stay. And Hank annoyed me so much—the way he looked, how he smoked his cigars and how he didn’t do the in depth research and analyzing that is required of detective-types.
After voicing my frustration, I do want to say that I was pleased with some parts of the film. As much as I thought Susie was stupid, I was pleased how she was portrayed as a woman. She certainly had the classical film look for a woman character; however, she was a lot more aggressive than the classical women. She gets in other character’s faces and her voice doesn’t sound pleasing at all times during the film. In the beginning her tone of voice definitely goes deeper even to the point of cracking a little at times. I’m not sure what spoke louder though—her stupidity or non-classical nature.
I was pleased with the framing throughout the film. My favorite framing scene was in the beginning when Susie was in a hotel room and a light started to shine on her. As the camera moved to the light source the audience sees a window with a silhouette of a man and then the flashlight shines right in the middle of the window. Susie is framed within the other window, but breaks the frame when she turns out the light and then throws the light bulb across the way (which I might add is uncharacteristic of classically portrayed women).
I also enjoyed the fact that Susie, played by Janet Leigh, was also Marion in Psycho. The manager of the hotel where Susie stays in Touch of Evil reminded me of Norman Bates from Psycho because of their skittish nature around beautiful women, such as the characters Janet Leigh plays. It was a fun connection to make.
My final appreciation of this film occurred during the first few minutes. The entire first few minutes was filmed in one shot. I was impressed by the fluid movement of the camera as it followed a car and a couple (Mike and Susie) until the explosion of the car. Overall the things that impressed me about the film seem to be greater than the things that annoyed me.
I was mostly angry at character stupidity. I wondered why characters didn’t use common sense or realize things that I realized. Susie was a stupid character the way she followed Pancho around when he said to follow him. Mike was stupid that he didn’t do his research on the hotel where he was having his wife stay. And Hank annoyed me so much—the way he looked, how he smoked his cigars and how he didn’t do the in depth research and analyzing that is required of detective-types.
After voicing my frustration, I do want to say that I was pleased with some parts of the film. As much as I thought Susie was stupid, I was pleased how she was portrayed as a woman. She certainly had the classical film look for a woman character; however, she was a lot more aggressive than the classical women. She gets in other character’s faces and her voice doesn’t sound pleasing at all times during the film. In the beginning her tone of voice definitely goes deeper even to the point of cracking a little at times. I’m not sure what spoke louder though—her stupidity or non-classical nature.
I was pleased with the framing throughout the film. My favorite framing scene was in the beginning when Susie was in a hotel room and a light started to shine on her. As the camera moved to the light source the audience sees a window with a silhouette of a man and then the flashlight shines right in the middle of the window. Susie is framed within the other window, but breaks the frame when she turns out the light and then throws the light bulb across the way (which I might add is uncharacteristic of classically portrayed women).
I also enjoyed the fact that Susie, played by Janet Leigh, was also Marion in Psycho. The manager of the hotel where Susie stays in Touch of Evil reminded me of Norman Bates from Psycho because of their skittish nature around beautiful women, such as the characters Janet Leigh plays. It was a fun connection to make.
My final appreciation of this film occurred during the first few minutes. The entire first few minutes was filmed in one shot. I was impressed by the fluid movement of the camera as it followed a car and a couple (Mike and Susie) until the explosion of the car. Overall the things that impressed me about the film seem to be greater than the things that annoyed me.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Double Indemnity
The film Double Indemnity certainly kept my interest right to the last scene. I think there were a few different reasons that my interest was kept. They were the plot, character language and water.
I was instantly excited when I realized the whole film would be a flashback because Walter Neff was recalling his whole experience with Phyllis to Keyes through a work memo. It was excited to know that what I was watching led up to the gun shot in Neff’s shoulder. I was seeing the present (the gun shot shoulder scene), the past (the flashback) and the future (the gunshot scenes after the flashback). There were many suspenseful twists that I thoroughly enjoyed—all of those occurred mostly at the end. I honestly didn’t expect to hear that Phyllis basically murdered her husband’s previous wife. I also didn’t expect both Phyllis and Neff to die by killing each other. (Well, I’m not actually sure that Neff dies.) However, I didn’t think they would go to prison. I liked how there were two main characters, but that Keyes was close enough to the audience throughout the movie that I found myself sometimes wanting him to figure things out, and then I would snap from it and continue to be on Neff and Phyllis’s side.
The second part that kept my interest was character language. There were so many lines that could become “one-liners” in the film and I really enjoyed listening to them. Wondering and thinking about them while watching made me want to keep listening. Some of the lines that I enjoyed were:
Neff: I wonder if you wonder.
Neff: How could I have known that murder smelled like honeysuckle?
Neff: I felt like a million.
Neff: I’m crazy about you baby.
Okay, so all of the ones I wrote down were from Neff, but I’m sure there were more.
The third item on my list…water, yes, water also kept my interest. When reading the article for class, I read that water is used a lot in film noir, so I was looking for it throughout the film. I might expand on this in later blogs, so I’ll just mention the parts where I saw water. The fishbowl was a prominent source of water. It was a small prop that didn’t mean too much, but the water it held was important. Also, it was raining when Neff went home after being with Phyllis for the second time. Keyes asked for water during one point.
Overall it was an enjoyable movie to watch, packed full of various twists and interesting things.
p.s.- why was Neff wearing a wedding ring?
I was instantly excited when I realized the whole film would be a flashback because Walter Neff was recalling his whole experience with Phyllis to Keyes through a work memo. It was excited to know that what I was watching led up to the gun shot in Neff’s shoulder. I was seeing the present (the gun shot shoulder scene), the past (the flashback) and the future (the gunshot scenes after the flashback). There were many suspenseful twists that I thoroughly enjoyed—all of those occurred mostly at the end. I honestly didn’t expect to hear that Phyllis basically murdered her husband’s previous wife. I also didn’t expect both Phyllis and Neff to die by killing each other. (Well, I’m not actually sure that Neff dies.) However, I didn’t think they would go to prison. I liked how there were two main characters, but that Keyes was close enough to the audience throughout the movie that I found myself sometimes wanting him to figure things out, and then I would snap from it and continue to be on Neff and Phyllis’s side.
The second part that kept my interest was character language. There were so many lines that could become “one-liners” in the film and I really enjoyed listening to them. Wondering and thinking about them while watching made me want to keep listening. Some of the lines that I enjoyed were:
Neff: I wonder if you wonder.
Neff: How could I have known that murder smelled like honeysuckle?
Neff: I felt like a million.
Neff: I’m crazy about you baby.
Okay, so all of the ones I wrote down were from Neff, but I’m sure there were more.
The third item on my list…water, yes, water also kept my interest. When reading the article for class, I read that water is used a lot in film noir, so I was looking for it throughout the film. I might expand on this in later blogs, so I’ll just mention the parts where I saw water. The fishbowl was a prominent source of water. It was a small prop that didn’t mean too much, but the water it held was important. Also, it was raining when Neff went home after being with Phyllis for the second time. Keyes asked for water during one point.
Overall it was an enjoyable movie to watch, packed full of various twists and interesting things.
p.s.- why was Neff wearing a wedding ring?
Friday, November 7, 2008
You don't have to like a film for it to be great...
To be truly great a film must have…
-Excellent writing of the film (words/actions/etc). This is a baseline I think… if a film has everything else listed below this, but is not tied together with a tight and well thought out words/actions that blend with everything else, then it has failed to be great.
-Representation or Presentation equal to what is being shown on screen. We’ve talked about whether films are presentation of realty or a representation of reality. Either can be incorporated into a film that is truly great, however, I think the director needs to think about whether he/she is representing or presenting and allow that to affect the film in whatever way necessary. Creativity within this is important as well—creativity can force an audience to view and experience a representation or presentation of reality in a way that they never knew they could before. This was the case in Daughters of the Dust. Although I did not particularly like the film, it was great because it forced the audience to feel uncomfortable with the way reality was being shown on screen.
-Use of creative cinematography. This is extremely important for a film to be great. Again, like it was with representation/presentation, it is important for the filmmakers to be creative with their cinematography. They should make it fit with the scene, characters, and film as a whole using creativity to catch the audience and possibly leave people wondering how they did something or just in wonder. In class we’ve talked about how The Diving Bell and the Butterfly could have very easily been a Hallmark film, but it was not! The cinematography made it a great film.
-Editing that matches the film. It is important to have an editor that will be creative and match the editing to the action and perception of the movement and spoken word. The editing was another factor in Daughters of the Dust that made it great. There were scenes where some of the women/girls were dancing on the beach and the editing made it feel like staccato movement. It was very beautiful and stuck in my mind for a while after.
-Casting that matches. It is important that the casting matches the characters well. For the remake of Psycho I had a hard time watching Vince Vaughn on screen as Norman Bates because he is generally a comedic actor I understand he might have not been as famous at that time, but even so, his face was not attractive or sly enough for Norman Bates. Obviously this is completely opinion based, but I think there is some value and concreteness to casting actors that match the characters. It is important that their acting style and ability matches the needs of the film as well (which technically goes with use of mise en scene, which is the next component for a great film). A number of films are terrible because the acting seems so fake (not stylized, but fake). For example, the film A Walk to Remember is not a great film by any means for a number of reasons, but one of the reasons is bad acting.
-Use of mise en scene. Making the scenes and sets look real or at least making them match and show something a little deeper about the film as whole is very important. It is good for film makers to be conscious of effective lighting, character blocking, costumes, make-up, etc. The film Ran was great partially because of its use of mise en scene. The castle that was burnt down in a battle was real, the costumes definitely were telling of the people and then the use of wide open landscape as a setting was very important and telling for the characters involved.
There are probably more things that make a film great; however, this is my list. I think overall the films that become great are the films where the film makers stretch themselves beyond their limits to form something creative—something that will make the audience step back and think, There’s something about that… or even I don’t think I liked that film, but there was something about it… A great film goes beyond liking it. I keep thinking about bell hooks talking about Daughters of the Dust and how that film forces the viewer to look at things in a way they never had to before—it challenged the normal way of telling stories. I think when a film defies normalcy to some degree it has a quality of greatness.
I’m not sure whether all films need to have every part of my list to be great because some films are known for one or two of those things and could be great. Or is it that really, those one or two qualities are enhanced because everything else fell together so smoothly? I don’t know if there can be a universal standard for greatness—perhaps greatness is bound to each individual genre. Maybe it is according to each individual culture…
-Excellent writing of the film (words/actions/etc). This is a baseline I think… if a film has everything else listed below this, but is not tied together with a tight and well thought out words/actions that blend with everything else, then it has failed to be great.
-Representation or Presentation equal to what is being shown on screen. We’ve talked about whether films are presentation of realty or a representation of reality. Either can be incorporated into a film that is truly great, however, I think the director needs to think about whether he/she is representing or presenting and allow that to affect the film in whatever way necessary. Creativity within this is important as well—creativity can force an audience to view and experience a representation or presentation of reality in a way that they never knew they could before. This was the case in Daughters of the Dust. Although I did not particularly like the film, it was great because it forced the audience to feel uncomfortable with the way reality was being shown on screen.
-Use of creative cinematography. This is extremely important for a film to be great. Again, like it was with representation/presentation, it is important for the filmmakers to be creative with their cinematography. They should make it fit with the scene, characters, and film as a whole using creativity to catch the audience and possibly leave people wondering how they did something or just in wonder. In class we’ve talked about how The Diving Bell and the Butterfly could have very easily been a Hallmark film, but it was not! The cinematography made it a great film.
-Editing that matches the film. It is important to have an editor that will be creative and match the editing to the action and perception of the movement and spoken word. The editing was another factor in Daughters of the Dust that made it great. There were scenes where some of the women/girls were dancing on the beach and the editing made it feel like staccato movement. It was very beautiful and stuck in my mind for a while after.
-Casting that matches. It is important that the casting matches the characters well. For the remake of Psycho I had a hard time watching Vince Vaughn on screen as Norman Bates because he is generally a comedic actor I understand he might have not been as famous at that time, but even so, his face was not attractive or sly enough for Norman Bates. Obviously this is completely opinion based, but I think there is some value and concreteness to casting actors that match the characters. It is important that their acting style and ability matches the needs of the film as well (which technically goes with use of mise en scene, which is the next component for a great film). A number of films are terrible because the acting seems so fake (not stylized, but fake). For example, the film A Walk to Remember is not a great film by any means for a number of reasons, but one of the reasons is bad acting.
-Use of mise en scene. Making the scenes and sets look real or at least making them match and show something a little deeper about the film as whole is very important. It is good for film makers to be conscious of effective lighting, character blocking, costumes, make-up, etc. The film Ran was great partially because of its use of mise en scene. The castle that was burnt down in a battle was real, the costumes definitely were telling of the people and then the use of wide open landscape as a setting was very important and telling for the characters involved.
There are probably more things that make a film great; however, this is my list. I think overall the films that become great are the films where the film makers stretch themselves beyond their limits to form something creative—something that will make the audience step back and think, There’s something about that… or even I don’t think I liked that film, but there was something about it… A great film goes beyond liking it. I keep thinking about bell hooks talking about Daughters of the Dust and how that film forces the viewer to look at things in a way they never had to before—it challenged the normal way of telling stories. I think when a film defies normalcy to some degree it has a quality of greatness.
I’m not sure whether all films need to have every part of my list to be great because some films are known for one or two of those things and could be great. Or is it that really, those one or two qualities are enhanced because everything else fell together so smoothly? I don’t know if there can be a universal standard for greatness—perhaps greatness is bound to each individual genre. Maybe it is according to each individual culture…
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Ran
Ran was a film I really enjoyed. It was humorous, had interesting characters, great cinematography and a good plot. Because I found the film to be a comedy just as much as a war drama, I want to discuss that humor.
Ran is a Japanese film directed by Akira Kurosawa, who is an extremely respected and known director. Kevin explained in class that Kurosawa, although a Japanese director, did use some western ideas in his films. I mention all of this because while watching Ran and laughing at certain parts, I was wondering if I was appropriate in my laughter or not. For example, I (and many others) laughed really hard every time we saw Lord Hidetora Ichimonji in his failing state—he had white crazy hair, he kept on asking ridiculous questions and saying nonsense, which made it really funny. His comedic loyal follower always made things seem even funnier because he would start singing or commenting on Lord Hidetora’s actions.
It seemed like the film makers used some parts of the plot that seem ridiculous to sort of make fun of the characters or make light of the situation… but then again I’m not sure. Sometimes when I laughed I think it was probably because of the translation of words. I’m not sure how translations are made, so at times I wonder if it was appropriate for me to find things funny or not.
Some other things that I found amusing were the battle at the third castle (where Lord Hidetora Ichimonji walked out alive) and the desert type scenes with Lord Hidetora Ichimonji and the young comedian joker. I want to clarify that the scenes overall were not amusing to me, but only parts of them. (One of my favorite shots came from the scene where Lord Hidetora’s foot came down the step before walking away from the fighting.) The way in which the battle sequence was filmed seemed like the movement was quick. During this sequence the audience didn’t hear any battle sounds, but rather very soothing music. The music, quick movement, dramatic way in which the soldiers were fighting, and the use of fake squirty blood reminded me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which is a very amusing movie.
Besides what I previously mentioned about Lord Hidetora and his comedian during the desert scene, the desert/ruined castle set reminded me of films made about Bible-times, specifically the movies that act out a book in the Bible. There are scenes from these Bible movies that have been dubbed over to be a mock-Bible movie/ funny version of it. I’ve seen a few on youtube.com. The desert scene in Ran reminded me of these, which made me laugh. This set also seems to have qualities of a cowboy film. For example, when the two men were riding their horses past the ruins, Tango was up high on the rocks (like a bandit) and ran down to injure or kill them.
Another scene that sort of related to the Bible-movie reminder where I also found myself laughing was when the blind guy, Tsurumaru, was being led by his sister. I laughed and that seems terrible! However, it was absurd that his sister left him in the desert at the ruins of their home when he was blind!
Even though I’m not sure if the film was meant to be a comedy and a war drama, I liked it for how I interpreted it. I found comfort in the fact that other people were laughing and making comments that I was thinking. Watching Ran with a group of people was great to hear and join in on reactions to the film.
Ran is a Japanese film directed by Akira Kurosawa, who is an extremely respected and known director. Kevin explained in class that Kurosawa, although a Japanese director, did use some western ideas in his films. I mention all of this because while watching Ran and laughing at certain parts, I was wondering if I was appropriate in my laughter or not. For example, I (and many others) laughed really hard every time we saw Lord Hidetora Ichimonji in his failing state—he had white crazy hair, he kept on asking ridiculous questions and saying nonsense, which made it really funny. His comedic loyal follower always made things seem even funnier because he would start singing or commenting on Lord Hidetora’s actions.
It seemed like the film makers used some parts of the plot that seem ridiculous to sort of make fun of the characters or make light of the situation… but then again I’m not sure. Sometimes when I laughed I think it was probably because of the translation of words. I’m not sure how translations are made, so at times I wonder if it was appropriate for me to find things funny or not.
Some other things that I found amusing were the battle at the third castle (where Lord Hidetora Ichimonji walked out alive) and the desert type scenes with Lord Hidetora Ichimonji and the young comedian joker. I want to clarify that the scenes overall were not amusing to me, but only parts of them. (One of my favorite shots came from the scene where Lord Hidetora’s foot came down the step before walking away from the fighting.) The way in which the battle sequence was filmed seemed like the movement was quick. During this sequence the audience didn’t hear any battle sounds, but rather very soothing music. The music, quick movement, dramatic way in which the soldiers were fighting, and the use of fake squirty blood reminded me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which is a very amusing movie.
Besides what I previously mentioned about Lord Hidetora and his comedian during the desert scene, the desert/ruined castle set reminded me of films made about Bible-times, specifically the movies that act out a book in the Bible. There are scenes from these Bible movies that have been dubbed over to be a mock-Bible movie/ funny version of it. I’ve seen a few on youtube.com. The desert scene in Ran reminded me of these, which made me laugh. This set also seems to have qualities of a cowboy film. For example, when the two men were riding their horses past the ruins, Tango was up high on the rocks (like a bandit) and ran down to injure or kill them.
Another scene that sort of related to the Bible-movie reminder where I also found myself laughing was when the blind guy, Tsurumaru, was being led by his sister. I laughed and that seems terrible! However, it was absurd that his sister left him in the desert at the ruins of their home when he was blind!
Even though I’m not sure if the film was meant to be a comedy and a war drama, I liked it for how I interpreted it. I found comfort in the fact that other people were laughing and making comments that I was thinking. Watching Ran with a group of people was great to hear and join in on reactions to the film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
